Silence of the lambs:US government authorized killing of endangered bighorns in path of wind project

[Kali]

27. Thanks for the reply.

While all but one of your links go to the same media source, I did try to find to some legitimate data by following the links related to livestock issues in the first link you gave. I am on dial-up so the goat farmer on you tube will have to wait a while, but so far I'm not seeing much documentation here. Both it and most of the links seem to be opinion pieces. It would be nice to read some real firsthand information. I couldn't find anything related to the dead dairy cows in Wisconsin, but perhaps I just missed it due to my slow dial up and the confusing lack of real source material. Not sure why you are forcing me to go through that magazine (do you have some affiliation?) rather than just providing the links directly.

Herds experience these things periodically, so I would like to at least know what happened to neighboring herds/flocks. If one farmer has a problem and the others around him/her do not that makes it a pretty questionable claim. Even if several have problems I would want to know if others in the area, but not near the wind farms have similar issues. My first guess is a common transmissible disease rather than a mysterious anecdotal account of some technological issue. Not saying it couldn't be, but I would think if it were a real source of livestock problems we would have a HELL of a lot more anecdotes. People do take a long time to notice general wildlife effects, a bit less for dramatic and "popular" wildlife (birds of prey, sea mammals), but when $$$ and livelihoods are affected by these things the rate of observation, complaints, and documentation tends to go way up. The fact that there haven't been many says to me the reported livestock issues are probably something else.

Oh and "Dr. Nina Pierpont at Johns Hopkin University School of Medicine" (from your first link) should probably be listed as "Dr. Nina Pierpont, a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine-trained M.D." as I couldn't find anything showing she was otherwise affiliated with them. Her work on human symptoms related to the low-frequency noise (not just wind turbines) seems better than any of the info on livestock. Might be better to cite something from her book rather than a letter to the editor sort of thing, however.

Wish I had more time to check the other stuff you gave me but my main interest (and personal experience) is the livestock issue. I didn't see much useful info, so not going to spend effort on the rest right now. Documenting claims seems a little weak here. Too sensational for my tastes.

Which leads to my request for the "take" documents. Your OP subject line blares about KILLING endangered sheep. Implying some human is going to go and shoot them or something. In the document itself is an estimate of possible impact to 5 ewes in their lambing habitat. Not much data available for the actual presence OR the potential impact - the whole thing is a lot of rather vague conservative/generous conjecture. It is NOT a situation where animals will be directly killed or even captured and relocated. It is the POSSIBLE affect on a few lambing ewes. The sensational subject line and hysterics in the article serve only to shut off real dialog and discussion.

Here is the full taking statement on the bighorns (since this is a public document and not a copyright situation, I am quoting more than 4 paragraphs) http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/elcentro/nepa/ocotilloexpress.Par.35308.File.dat/ROD%20Appendix%20A-BO.pdf (pgs 48 and 49) :

AMOUNT AND EXTENT OF TAKE

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep

The anticipated level of incidental take for Peninsular bighorn sheep is based on the number of individuals seen within 600 yards of proposed turbine sites, and the value of associated habitat. If the anticipated level of incidental take is exceeded, it will trigger reinitiation of consultation. Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep is exempted as follows:

As described in more detail below, the Service anticipates that up to five adult ewes and five lambs could be taken as a result of the proposed action. Take is anticipated due to behavioral avoidance of portions of currently occupied home ranges, including lambing and rearing habitat, which are within the I-8 Island and within 600 yards of the nearest turbines. As discussed in the Effects of the Action section, behavioral responses of bighorn sheep to various human activities can take different forms depending on the activity and inherent variation in the behavior of individual bighorn sheep. As also discussed, sheep demonstrate varying levels of habituation to infrastructure and reoccurring disturbances. The effects of wind turbines and associated human activities on bighorn sheep have not been studied and empirical evidence is lacking. However, given the sensitivity of bighorn sheep to other forms of human disturbance, we conclude that turbine presence is reasonably certain to represent a modification or degradation of habitat likely to significantly impair essential behavioral patterns pertaining to breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

As described in the Effects of the Action section, bighorn ewes have particular habitat and nutritional requirements during the period surrounding parturition, when they also demonstrate increased sensitivity to disturbance. Operation of the proposed wind farm would create increased human disturbance and vehicle access, a novel source of low-frequency noise, and visual disturbance in the form of tall structures, moving blades, and flickering shadows. If the ewes closest to the turbines shift their home ranges to avoid associated disturbances, their existing lambing areas would likely be in the territory abandoned. Loss of lambing and rearing habitat from project disturbance and the increased energy expenditure needed to find new lambing areas farther from the proposed project would disrupt reproductive behavior and may lead to reproductive failure for the year. If ewes give birth in suboptimal habitat, lambs and ewes would also be exposed to increased risk of predation, increasing the risk of death or injury to the ewes and their lambs in the first year of turbine operations. As discussed in the Effects of the Action section, the perpetuation of increased risk of death or injury depends on the relative habitat value of new lambing and rearing areas, and ewe habituation to turbine presence.

As described in the Effects of the Action section, experts have recommended a 400 to 1,200-yard buffer between activities associated with urban development and bighorn sheep lambing areas. Since we are not aware of more definitive information, we have based our analysis on the concepts underlying expert recommendations. Due to uncertainty in how sheep would respond to wind turbines, we reason that an intermediate value within the recommended range may be most appropriate. In accordance with past practice and species biology, we choose 600 yards as a likely buffer distance of behavioral avoidance during the period when ewes select lambing areas, seclude themselves and their lambs, and are particularly sensitive to various forms of disturbance. Near the proposed project site and within the action area, Helix Environmental Planning observed four adult ewes and one lamb less than 600 yards from proposed turbines 24 and 25 (Helix 2011). In addition, tracks and scat less than 1 month old were observed 355 yards from the nearest proposed turbine location in the same vicinity as the observed sheep. In a Peninsular bighorn sheep report associated with the Sunrise Powerlink Project, one ram, one ewe, and one lamb were reported as using the same area (Davenport Biological Services 2011). Numerous individuals of unknown sex and age, including a single sighting of 14 sheep, have been observed south of this area. However, this location was about 740 yards from proposed turbines and is separated topographically from the two sightings described above. This information, along with that presented in the Environmental Baseline section, indicates numerous bighorn sheep are using the general area bordering the project site, and that a subset of these sheep have portions of their home ranges within 600 yards of proposed wind turbines 24 and 25. Based on the fact that ewes generally are more sensitive to disturbance than rams and that a minimum of five ewes have been documented within the 600-yard disturbance buffer zone, we estimate that the proposed project could significantly impair essential behavioral patterns of five ewes, potentially resulting in the injury or death of the ewes and/or their lambs. As each ewe typically has one lamb a year, and gestation rates are high, we assume five ewes would correspond to five lambs.

No take of Peninsular bighorn sheep is anticipated or exempted for actions associated with the proposed restoration of Carrizo Marsh in the State Park.

There are a number of pages of further observational, monitoring, and reporting requirements as well.

There are a LOT of serious issues that need addressing in regards to these large-scale "green" energy projects, including the affects on wildlife, livestock, humans, watersheds, habitats, viewsheds etc etc etc. Shrieking that endangered animals have been authorized to be killed does a huge disservice to the actual discussion and science that needs to be done. I suppose getting people riled up enough to actually pay attention is a good enough reason for some to act this way but it sure isn't very good journalism. It is activism rather than informing.